CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 392,502
Regular Panel Decision

Love v. State

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and had his probation revoked due to an offense in cause no. 392,502. The appellant argued that the controlled substance was obtained through an illegal warrantless arrest and search conducted by Pasadena city police outside their jurisdictional limits in Houston. The court examined common-law rules, statutory interpretations (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 998 and 999), and Code of Criminal Procedure articles (e.g., art. 14.01(b)) concerning the territorial authority of city police officers. It concluded that city police do not possess general countywide or statewide warrantless arrest powers unless specific statutory exceptions (like hot pursuit) apply, which were not present in this case. Consequently, the court held that the Pasadena officers lacked the authority for the arrest and search, reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the cause for a new trial.

Warrantless ArrestPolice JurisdictionCity LimitsCountywide AuthorityControlled SubstanceSearch and SeizureCommon LawStatutory ConstructionTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureTexas Revised Civil Statutes
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1978

People v. Murray

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered a judgment on November 3, 1978, convicting the defendant-appellant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which led to an appeal. The defendant failed to appear for a scheduled court appearance during pretrial proceedings but subsequently returned and entered a guilty plea. Initial discussions regarding a plea for a one-year minimum sentence were deemed conditional and non-binding due to the defendant's abscondence. The defendant ultimately entered a plea with the understanding of a three-year minimum sentence, with a provision for withdrawal if the probation report suggested a harsher punishment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, highlighting the defendant's prior arrests for drug-related offenses and emphasizing the importance of upholding judicial rules against flouting court directives.

Criminal LawPlea BargainAbscondingControlled SubstanceAppellate ReviewSentencingJudicial DiscretionWithdrawal of PleaProbation ReportBronx County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1999

People v. Abdul

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in the Supreme Court, New York County, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced to a term of 2 to 6 years. The judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court determined that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and there was no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations. The court properly denied the defendant’s preclusion motion regarding a statement made to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, finding no evidence that EMS workers acted as police agents and that the inquiry was not an interrogation. The appellate court also found no basis for a reduction of the sentence and rejected the defendant's remaining claims.

Criminal LawControlled SubstancesJury TrialEvidence SufficiencyPreclusion MotionPolice AgencyInterrogationSentence ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
3
Case No. 2013-DCL-3455-D
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2014

Victor Quijano, Doing Business as Target Pest Control v. Cameron County, City of Brownsville & Brownsville Independent School District

Plaintiffs, Cameron County, City of Brownsville, and Brownsville Independent School District, initiated a lawsuit against Victor Quijano, operating as Target Pest Control, for the recovery of delinquent ad valorem taxes. The taxes were related to tangible personal property for the tax years spanning 2005 through 2009. Quijano asserted that his business ceased operations in 2008 or 2009, and he did not possess significant taxable property, largely functioning as a subcontractor. The 103rd Judicial District Court of Cameron County, presided over by Hon. Janeth Leal, issued a judgment on December 1, 2014. The court granted the plaintiffs' demand for delinquent taxes, along with penalties, interest, and attorney fees, totaling $1,726.79, and mandated additional accruals post-judgment. All other requested relief was denied, rendering the judgment conclusive and subject to appeal.

Tax DelinquencyAd Valorem TaxesPersonal Property TaxSummary JudgmentTexas Tax CodeProperty Tax EnforcementBusiness TaxationSubcontractor LiabilityCivil Procedure RulesAppellate Court Brief
References
4
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02667 [138 AD3d 758]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

People v. Melendez

The defendant, Carlos Melendez, appealed a judgment from the County Court, Suffolk County, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, operating as a major trafficker, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The conviction stemmed from a year-long wiretap investigation into a heroin ring in Suffolk County. On appeal, Melendez challenged the admissibility of expert testimony and the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, acknowledged errors in the detective's expert testimony but found them harmless due to overwhelming proof of guilt. The court also determined the evidence was legally sufficient, particularly regarding voice identification, and affirmed the judgment.

Criminal LawDrug TraffickingConspiracyWiretap EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonyHarmless Error DoctrineLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceVoice IdentificationAppellate ProcedureEvidence Admissibility
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Hinkein

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Columbia County, rendered on February 15, 2001, convicting her of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of endangering the welfare of a child following a guilty plea. The defendant argued that the County Court erred in accepting her plea without first conducting a competency examination under CPL 730.20, given her history of manic depression. However, the Appellate Division found that the County Court did not abuse its discretion, citing correspondence from social workers indicating no mental status abnormalities and the defendant's capable responses during the plea colloquy. The appellate court also determined that the imposed sentence was neither harsh nor excessive, considering the defendant's criminal history and her use of a 12-year-old child as a drug courier. Consequently, the judgment of the County Court was affirmed.

Criminal sale of controlled substanceEndangering welfare of childGuilty pleaCompetency issueCPL 730.20Second felony offenderConcurrent sentenceManic depressionMental health assessmentAppellate review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifty-Six Thousand, Seven Hundred Dollars in United States Currency v. State

Chief Justice Preslar dissents from a judgment of forfeiture, arguing that the State failed to meet its burden of proof under the Controlled Substances Act. He contends that the defendant's charged offense of possession is not among those enumerated in the Act for forfeiture. Furthermore, the trial court erred by not ruling on the admissibility of evidence obtained via a disputed search warrant, improperly applying criminal procedure rules to a civil case. Preslar asserts that the State presented insufficient circumstantial evidence to link the seized currency to the sale, distribution, or delivery of controlled substances, noting that the drug paraphernalia was consistent with personal use. He highlights the defendant, Harry Farah's, credible explanation for the money's source through legitimate architectural business. Preslar concludes that the judgment is unconstitutional, lacks evidentiary support, and contains reversible error due to the court's failure to make definitive rulings on key evidence.

Forfeiture LawControlled Substances ActExclusionary RuleSearch and SeizureDue ProcessSufficiency of EvidenceCircumstantial EvidenceBurden of ProofAdmissibility of EvidenceCivil vs. Criminal Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. 13-08-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa and Industrial Risk Insurers v. John Zink Company Fisher Controls Company, Inc. Fisher Controls International, Inc. Fisher Controls Installation and Service Company And Valtek, Inc.

This litigation, stemming from refinery explosions and fires in the 1980s, involved an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company and Industrial Risk Insurers (the Insurers) against various contractors (the Contractors). The Insurers, as subrogees of Valero Energy Corporation, sought damages for product liability, negligence, breach of contract, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The core legal dispute centered on whether the Contractors qualified as 'subcontractors' under a master contract between Valero and M.W. Kellogg Construction Company, which contained extensive waiver and release provisions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment, concluding that the Contractors were indeed subcontractors, the express negligence doctrine did not apply to the post-act release, and Valero had validly waived its DTPA claims, thereby binding its subrogees.

Contractual WaiversSubrogation RightsSummary Judgment AppealExpress Negligence RuleDeceptive Trade Practices ActParol Evidence Rule ApplicationJudicial AdmissionsConstruction ContractsInsurance LitigationThird-Party Beneficiary
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Fulton Sylphon Division, Robertshaw Controls Co.

Willie J. Johnson, a black male, filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, Fulton Sylphon Division of Robertshaw Controls Company, alleging racial discrimination regarding a denied transfer to the Numerical Control Department and subsequent retaliatory discharge. Johnson claimed he was denied promotion due to his race and fired in retaliation for his protected activities. The defendant argued that Johnson's excessive absenteeism, poor work performance, and lack of qualifications were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions. The court found that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding he was not qualified for the transfer due to his consistent poor work record. Furthermore, his discharge was found to be a result of his ongoing absenteeism and uncooperative attitude, not retaliation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliatory DischargeAbsenteeismPoor Work PerformancePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextStatistical Evidence
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 2,751 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational